1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Davasar]

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

[Tinxa]

Mydalis wrote...

I thought that it was revealed in one of the games that your mother was some sort of cultist and Gorion rescued you as a child, then you grew up alongside Imoen in Candlekeep as Gorion's ward regardless of what you chose. Then again maybe I'm just imagining that being in there...been a long time since I played the BG games. Anyone else remember?

I remember there was an inconsistency about the mother.

In BG you find Gorions letter when you return to Candlekeep. In it it says that your mother was Gorion's good friend who was seduced by Bhaal, died in childbirth and Gorion promised to look after you. But in ToB your mother is said to be an evil cultist and Gorion rescued you.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...



How did you choose lines? Did you work out what you wanted to say and then were disappointed that it wasn't an available option?

This is usually how people play when they say they don't get to say what they want. This is why I described the process by which I select lines above. My way doesn't cause this problem.

Like I said, what you do isn't a unqiue process. Cripes you have a high opinion of yourself. I can tell you that for the bulk of the Redcliffe and Ashes quests there weren't apt options for who my first character was and what I wanted him to be. That's a big flippin' hole in DAO.



It is frankly impossible to fathom you are as creative as you think you are and you weren't left thinking "Gosh that isn't quite what I wanted to say" when the lines were written by another person who wasn't even vaguely thinking about your particular character.



Toss in that NPC's react to your "tone" even though you don't have any in any unvoiced game and there's nothing about DAO that is a whit different than ME in terms of not hoeing strictly to your whims.

[Sidney]

Davasar wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

No bad point, that logic says they should just keep pumping out IE games because BG2 was a rockin' game so why bother to evolve from that point? They're wasting resources they could put into better stories and characters.

Then again plenty of people just want to freeze games at BG2 so maybe that seems like a good point to you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

It is frankly impossible to fathom you are as creative as you think you are and you weren't left thinking "Gosh that isn't quite what I wanted to say" when the lines were written by another person who wasn't even vaguely thinking about your particular character.

You're still not getting it.  I didn't come up with "what I wanted to say" - that would pretty much guarantee disappointment.  I decided how my character felt, and then selected the option that didn't contradict me (there usually wasn't more than one).

There was routinely things I wished I could say but couldn't, but that's entirely irrelevant to the process I described.

I know my process isn't unique, but as yet you don't seem to understand it.

Toss in that NPC's react to your "tone" even though you don't have any in any unvoiced game and there's nothing about DAO that is a whit different than ME in terms of not hoeing strictly to your whims.

How the NPCs react has nothing to do with me playing my character.  If I don't choose the tone then my character didn't use the tone.

Sometimes the NPCs are just thick.

[Bryy_Miller]

Davasar wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

I'm confused as to who you are calling the AD HOM attacker, since Nar is responding to me directly, not adding on to my response. If anything, Knight's post could be considered an Ad Hom attack on BioWare. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

No bad point, that logic says they should just keep pumping out IE games because BG2 was a rockin' game so why bother to evolve from that point?

Even BG2 evolved too far.  They eliminated the open and unfettered travel between areas that made BG's main quest work so well.

[errant_knight]

Sidney wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

No bad point, that logic says they should just keep pumping out IE games because BG2 was a rockin' game so why bother to evolve from that point? They're wasting resources they could put into better stories and characters.

Then again plenty of people just want to freeze games at BG2 so maybe that seems like a good point to you.

Or it could be that I've worked in the graphics/gaming industry and know how much time that stuff takes. Oh, and F*** you, too, Narreneth.

[Bryy_Miller]

Why "**** you, too"? He didn't know you worked in the industry. And even so, did you work at BioWare?

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How the NPCs react has nothing to do with me playing my character.  If I don't choose the tone then my character didn't use the tone.

Sometimes the NPCs are just thick.

I love this little bit of doublethink. People are dead concerned about their character saying it "right" but then why because if the NPC's react wrong well "they didn't get it". Do people whiff on your intent that often? Do you speak that poorly in your daily life that you think this happens all that often?

If the world is a brick wall that doesn't really interact with your character as you want them to most of the time then what is the point of playing a role? Your obfuscation allows pretty much total non-interaction because the world just misunderstands what you want to do.

Why is that rationalization any better or worse than the "oops, that didn't quite sound like i wanted it to sound" when the voiced option doesn't quite match what you want?

This isn't about any real role playing objections because you imagine all kinds of excuses for the game mechanisms you like but allow no deviation from perfect from those you don't so don't try and wrap your narrowmindness in the flag of being a better gamer.

[errant_knight]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Why "**** you, too"? He didn't know you worked in the industry. And even so, did you work at BioWare?

Insulting any of the posters here for their opions is equally obnoxious. It doesn't matter what he knows or doesn't know about me. And as far as I know, Bioware doesn't have magic programmers who can snap their fingers to produce code. Programming and animation is basically the same everywhere.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Even BG2 evolved too far.  They eliminated the open and unfettered travel between areas that made BG's main quest work so well.

BG was better than BG2 but not because of the open world - the stuff between the stuff is nothing. Walking isn't fun despite the fact that I cleared every shred of black from that game.

BG worked better because the story was better and more fresh at that point and the lousy AD&D game mechanics are better at low-to middle level games than at middle to high. ToB just 100% jumped the shark as you ascended to crazy level of power.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

I love this little bit of doublethink. People are dead concerned about their character saying it "right" but then why because if the NPC's react wrong well "they didn't get it". Do people whiff on your intent that often?

Yes.  Several times each day.

Do you speak that poorly in your daily life that you think this happens all that often?

I don't speak poorly.  I can demonstrate in most cases that it was the listener's error, not mine.

If the world is a brick wall that doesn't really interact with your character as you want them to most of the time then what is the point of playing a role?

Playing a role is the point.  It's a roleplaying game.  There's nothing else to it.

Playing a role is the primary and sole objective of the gameplay.

[Davasar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

I'm confused as to who you are calling the AD HOM attacker, since Nar is responding to me directly, not adding on to my response. If anything, Knight's post could be considered an Ad Hom attack on BioWare. 

Calling someone "an assclown" in order to discredit their opinion?  Thats text book AD HOM right there. 

And the particular poster did not AD HOM attack Bioware.  They stated what Bioware should have done.

It's simple:  Keep your core audience and make it grow by expanding/improving existing game features (not taking them out entirely) that made that core audience happy to buy the game.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Playing a role is the point.  It's a roleplaying game.  There's nothing else to it.

Playing a role is the primary and sole objective of the gameplay.

The only way your "role playing" has meaning is if the world reacts to it otherwise anything is a role playing game. Madden could be a role playing game if you play the role of a primma donna WR, who cares if the game doesn't react to that role as long as you play the role? All that matters if that you feel like you've nailed that role.

The whole meaning of, particularly Bioware, roleplaying games is that unlike other genres what you do and who you are does matter in the game world. That is the key element of a role playing game and a big part of that is the world not simply ignoring your words and actions.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sidney wrote...

I love this little bit of doublethink. People are dead concerned about their character saying it "right" but then why because if the NPC's react wrong well "they didn't get it". Do people whiff on your intent that often?

Yes.  Several times each day.

Do you speak that poorly in your daily life that you think this happens all that often?

I don't speak poorly.  I can demonstrate in most cases that it was the listener's error, not mine.

As to this, if you have this many failures to communicate you do have a problem. If you think you are right and the world is wrong there's a good chance you have it  backwards.

[maxernst]

Sidney wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Did you like Shepard?  Did you feel any ownership of Shepard?  Was Shepard your character?

Or was he just someone you watched?

Shep was all mine. I felt I owned him in a way I didn't own most other RPG characters - I mean a lot more than anything in BG2 or KoTOR for example where there was a massive incetive to play all or nothing good vs evil and the greys weren't all that interesting. I never had the array of choices and methods to interact with others. The closest thing to Shep was my old FO and FO2 characters in terms of texture.

I am so happy to hear that.  I've just started playing ME and I read something on another thread that there were gameplay issues that  forced you to maximize either paragon or renegade, so you just kept clicking upper left/upper right.  I was getting worried, because I've mostly been in the middle, some paragon, and a few "renegade" choices when they seemed appropriate.

Can't really answer whether I feel ownership of him yet...too early.  Even in games where I create my own character from scratch, it takes me a while to feel them out.

Modifié par maxernst, 12 août 2010 - 06:33 .

[Sidney]

maxernst wrote...
I am so happy to hear that.  I've just started playing ME and I read something on another thread that there were gameplay issues that  forced you to maximize either paragon or renegade, so you just kept clicking upper left/upper right.  I was getting worried, because I've mostly been in the middle, some paragon, and a few "renegade" choices when they seemed appropriate.

Can't really answer whether I feel ownership of him yet...too early.  Even in games where I create my own character from scratch, it takes me a while to feel them out.

There are a lot less reasons to max paragon/renegade than there were dark/light in KoTOR or Good/Evil in BG2. There's really no need to min/max.

[TheMadCat]

The whole meaning of, particularly Bioware, roleplaying games is that unlike other genres what you do and who you are does matter in the game world.

How do my roles in a BioWare game have a greater impact in their world then say my role in a Paradox game or Sins of a Solar Empire?

[maxernst]

TheMadCat wrote...

The whole meaning of, particularly Bioware, roleplaying games is that unlike other genres what you do and who you are does matter in the game world.

How do my roles in a BioWare game have a greater impact in their world then say my role in a Paradox game or Sins of a Solar Empire?

Oooh...a Paradox fan.  I actually have played pure RP games of Crusader Kings.  Great fun!

[Haexpane]

filetemo wrote...

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.
 

A lot of the posters here, (NOT ME) want the same thing.  They just want an action game w/ a story w/ lots of "choices" so they can pretend they are in the story.  I can't quite understand why they want the GAME parts removed from a videogame.

[Haexpane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
 
Playing a role is the point.  It's a roleplaying game.  There's nothing else to it.

Playing a role is the primary and sole objective of the gameplay.

Not at all, not to 99% of the people playing videogames.  You are controlling an avatar that is nothing at all like "playing a role".  Playing a role is like when Nathan plays Cap'n on firefly.  He is pretending to be someone else.

Playing a videogame is not really like that at all. 

[Bryy_Miller]

Davasar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

If they hadn't been focused on bringing in a different market, but on getting similar or slightly higher numbers as they got with DA:O--very good numbers, they would have been in a position to save a lot of time/money on the development of DA:2. They wouldn't have had to remake the graphics, spend time and money voicing the protagonist, creating the the 'improved' interface (heavy sacrcasm), or on making extensive and unnecessary 'cinematics.' They could have just forged ahead, spending that time on extending the world and implementing their new story.

*facepalm*
Again, why do people feel like they know things like this?

Because they're pretentious ass clowns.

Ad homenim attack in attempt to invalidate good points. 

Fail.

I'm confused as to who you are calling the AD HOM attacker, since Nar is responding to me directly, not adding on to my response. If anything, Knight's post could be considered an Ad Hom attack on BioWare. 

Calling someone "an assclown" in order to discredit their opinion?

Once again, he was responding to me, not adding to my response.

[sanadawarrior]

Haexpane wrote...

filetemo wrote...

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.
 

A lot of the posters here, (NOT ME) want the same thing.  They just want an action game w/ a story w/ lots of "choices" so they can pretend they are in the story.  I can't quite understand why they want the GAME parts removed from a videogame.

If they want an action GAME, how is it that they want the GAME parts removed?

[Haexpane]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

filetemo wrote...

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.
 

A lot of the posters here, (NOT ME) want the same thing.  They just want an action game w/ a story w/ lots of "choices" so they can pretend they are in the story.  I can't quite understand why they want the GAME parts removed from a videogame.

If they want an action GAME, how is it that they want the GAME parts removed?

I should have said the RPG game mechanics.   Although many of the "I don't like numbers" crowd would probably like the "action" to be nothing but Bad/Good choices and then sit back and watch a Bearded BaddAss get all up in someone's face so they can pretend they are a BaddAss?

I really don't know what they are thinking, I've never understood why people play an RPG and then complain about all the RPG mechanics and demand they be removed.

We already have a Formerly known as an RPG Mass Effect 2.   Dragon Age is one of the last true party based WRPGs, if DA2 becomes Mass Effect with swords, the genre is officially dead (except for MMOs)

I'm painting a WORST CASE SCENARIO in the hope that I'm wrong and DA2 is more like DAO than ME2:whistle: